Author
Topic: Another Whirlpooling Question (Read 2155 times)

This topic has me fascinated, as you might tell. Yes, I do have Mitch's book on my nightstand, but I haven't had a chance to crack it yet, and frankly, I think I need to make some time to sit on the porch with a few IPAs in order to get the full effect.

In any event, in looking at some emails from the pros such as this:

Quote

Happy to help out. Here's an outline of the recipe. You'll have to tailor it to your brew length and efficiency. Hopefully this gets you close.

knowing that pros,in a lot of cases, have separate tanks to do their whirlpooling (and subsequent whirlpool hop additions) adn thus strain/filter the boil before moving to the whirlpool tank, would it make sense to remove or strain out any boil hop additions to more closely mimic this (typically via hopbags) ?

Also, I am thinking that for instance with the above recipe (for Smutty's Finestkind IPA - a fave) it would hopefully stop the isomerziation of the late boil additions of Simcoe. This is one thing I have a hard time figuring - if we are getting a bunch of isomerization with whirlpool additions, than aren't any late additions to the boil are also continuing to isomerize? Thus if you whirlpool for 45 minutes, your 20 min boil additions are really sort of like bittering (65 min) additions?

Thoughts?

Logged

The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

As always, the first question that pops into my mind is "why?". What do you hope to accomplish by removing the boil hops? I can't see anything gained from it, but I may be missing something.

This:

Quote

Also, I am thinking that for instance with the above recipe (for Smutty's Finestkind IPA - a fave) it would hopefully stop the isomerziation of the late boil additions of Simcoe. This is one thing I have a hard time figuring - if we are getting a bunch of isomerization with whirlpool additions, than aren't any late additions to the boil are also continuing to isomerize? Thus if you whirlpool for 45 minutes, your 20 min boil additions are really sort of like bittering (65 min) additions?

not worried about early additions (60 min hops) but those late ones theoretically become the same thing if left in it would seem.

Logged

The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

Got it...interesting point. I think that I'd just find a way to subjectively quantify the bittering of late addition rather than try to remove them. Kind of like I do with FWH. I decide how much bittering I think I get from them, then reduce the 60 min. addition accordingly.

Doesn't it become hard to calculate out the amount of bitterness contribution you are adding to the beer when you start relying on the whirlpool additions? I suppose you can just brew to taste or have analysis ran on the beer to determine things of that nature. On colder days my whirlpool will drop below 185 degrees faster, allowing less time for isomerization to occur. Makes me really wonder about repeatability from batch to batch...When it comes to repeatability I know that a 60 minute addition or FWH will give me X amount of bitterness and is highly repeatable from batch to batch.

Logged

Michael P MitchemBeer and Ale Research Foundation (B.A.R.F.)AHA Member since 2011

Doesn't it become hard to calculate out the amount of bitterness contribution you are adding to the beer when you start relying on the whirlpool additions? I suppose you can just brew to taste or have analysis ran on the beer to determine things of that nature. On colder days my whirlpool will drop below 185 degrees faster, allowing less time for isomerization to occur. Makes me really wonder about repeatability from batch to batch...When it comes to repeatability I know that a 60 minute addition or FWH will give me X amount of bitterness and is highly repeatable from batch to batch.

very, very good point, but my conditions are quite different - I brew inside now with an electric system, and if I really want to, I can maintain whatever temp I want pretty consistently by just dialing the boil kettle to the temp.

I am new to whirlpool hopping, and I've seen a lot of people calculate it as a 15-20 min addition in terms of bitterness contributed for a 45-60 min whirlpool. That's what I plan on during my next brew - I input them as 17.5 min to use as a starting point.

Logged

The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

very, very good point, but my conditions are quite different - I brew inside now with an electric system, and if I really want to, I can maintain whatever temp I want pretty consistently by just dialing the boil kettle to the temp.

I am new to whirlpool hopping, and I've seen a lot of people calculate it as a 15-20 min addition in terms of bitterness contributed for a 45-60 min whirlpool. That's what I plan on during my next brew - I input them as 17.5 min to use as a starting point.

Right on. I guess what is hard for me to wrap my head around is what you are really trying to gain from the whirlpool? Is it for bitterness? Aroma? Flavor? A combination of all three? I think of whirlpooling as a way to get flavor and aroma out of the hops, with some small bitterness to boot. Of course the longer the hops have to isomerize, the more bitterness will be present. In my mind if I were going to do it for the bittering aspect, I am really just using more hops to do the same job when relying on the whirlpool in large. I really love to experiment with this stuff as well, so cheers to that my friend!

Logged

Michael P MitchemBeer and Ale Research Foundation (B.A.R.F.)AHA Member since 2011

When we shoveled hops out of the whirlpool at Sierra Nevada beer camp, we were surprised at the amount. The head pilot system brewer, Scott Jennings, said the boil kettle hops ended up in the whrilpool. That is what I remember.

Logged

Jeff RankertAnn Arbor Brewers Guild, AHA Member, BJCP CertifiedHome-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

mmitchem - I am trying to gain maximum flavor and aroma out of the whirlpool. I wish bitterness was not part of it, but it is a consequence.

unfortunately, I am an analyst by trade and engineer by blood, so now that I am onto trying out whirlpooling, i think of every 'what if' scenario and how would things change if I did this until I have covered all the bases. I tend to overthink things, but I have fun with it so its all good.

we'll see how the first whirlpool experiment goes next weekend.

Logged

The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.

I'm confused about the concept of using an extended whirlpool time to get more hop aroma. My experience is limited, but it's the exact opposite: letting the hops sit in hot wort for a longer period of time may actually drive off hop aroma.

I learned about this as I was working with one commercial brewer to scale up a pro am batch I made last year. Since that brewer had never been a homebrewer, I talked to another commercial brewer who had recently made the switch from homebrewing to commercial. I asked how aroma hops should be scaled from a homebrew recipe to commercial. His advice was that the quantity of hops is proportionately the same, but the timing is different. He noted that on the commercial scale, your flameout addition sits longer at a higher temperature while the wort is whirlpooled, then while the wort is slowly drained through the plate and frame heat exchangerinto the fermenter. So, whereas a flameout addition may sit in hot wort for 10-20 minutes while the batch is cooled with an immersion chiller at the homebrew scale, it may sit for 45 minutes to an hour at high temperatures on a commercial scale. So, to match the aroma of flameout addition, he suggested moving the flameout 10 or 20 minutes into the whirlpool.

This made sense to me, but we did not do it. The brewer I was working with considered it, but was concerned that the remaining whirlpool time wouldn't be sufficient to allow the hops to settle into the center of the kettle. This would risk sucking hops into the plate and frame. So we did the addition at flameout. Result: less hop aroma than my homebrew batch.

I know this is a sample of only one. But the principle makes sense to me: heat drives off aroma. Does anyone feel they get more hop aroma from an extended whirlpool? Does it work better if you cool the wort first (i.e., with an immersion chiller, say to 100 F or so), then allow the hops to set for 45 minutes?

The long whirlpool gives great flavor from the whirlpool hops, maybe only a little aroma. Dry hopping is where you get the aroma to go with the flavor.

There was an experiment done by Rock Bottom in their various breweries tha Ray Daniels covered in 2009. The best flavor and aroma was a long whirlpool followed by dry hopping. Look for the NHC 2009 talks and I think it was the second in the sequence by Ray and Randy.

Listen to what Matt Brynildson has to say about whirlpooling on the Brewing Network, he was on a Can You Brew It.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 03:12:29 PM by hopfenundmalz »

Logged

Jeff RankertAnn Arbor Brewers Guild, AHA Member, BJCP CertifiedHome-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

There are a lot of proponents of using an extended hop stand after flameout to increase hop aroma & flavor, but I have the same concerns about losing some hop oils to heat at the same time. On the flip side, heat generally increases solubility, so the question is - where is the sweet spot to maximize hop flavor/aroma while minimizing losses to volatilization of hop oils.

For my next IPA (all-Mosaic - yay!), I plan on increasing my flameout hops a bit, but adding 1/2 of them prior to my hop stand, and the other half before I start chilling. Hoping for the best of both worlds. Plus, any lost aroma will be made up by my dry hops.